Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I would be surprised if this is really going to hurt SEO. It is a tactic that might be a little bit in the grey area but if this is just 1 thing that you're 'messing' up and not doing the right way it would definitely not be something that they're going after.

Good! Are you still sure this applies to all pages that are going to be rendered (with the help of GTM)?

Hi,

Why do you think that? It probably really depends on the changes that you've made. In general I would never recommend making SEO changes through GTM anyway as it's not a best practice and you're depending on them being able to load the changes the right way.

Martijn.

As far as I know you have to use the Review Aggregates to show up in the search results but also make sure that you're listing the actual reviews. Have you done both?

Hi Matt,

As far as I understand your problem, it doesn't seem a good way to use REL Canonical to link products to categories. As it's intended to link a page that is the same to another page which you wouldn't be doing here. What I would recommend is noindexing the page if you're confident that it doesn't provide you with any user intent.

Martijn.

It's probably correct, but in the long term you probably still want to make sure the product term is ranking. Although in the end it's all about the bottom line just to make sure you're getting more conversions.

I can second this, it doesn't seem to really matter where you sitemaps are living. Definitely not if you link to them from your robots.txt file as it's a proof that you can influence their location.

Hey!

Did you check if these files might potentially be blocked by your robots.txt or could be on a CDN that they can't reach through the Render and Fetch feature?

Martijn.

Just add the sitemap index file to your robots.txt and let them figure it out from there. You basically just want to point them to your sitemaps and they're able to do that from just the sitemap index. So there's not really a need to list all of them in there.

If you really did your research you would have noticed the header image is not using an extension.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/brutal-poll-shows-most-people-214647063.html Good luck!

Do you need a new keyboard?

@James Wolff: I'm really hoping you're being sarcastic here. As it's totally fine to serve it without the extension. There are many more ways for a crawler to understand what type a file is. Including what @MarathonRunner is talking about here.

You would usually just have the page 404 as it's some information that doesn't exist anymore. If the page is still receiving significant traffic you could redirect it to a similar page, but over time the traffic will then decrease anyway.

Hi,

Wait, there site is showing up in your results or their pages are ranking for your queries/pages? I feel like this needs a bit more explanation so we're able to help you out with this.

Martijn.

Hi Leebi,

As you probably noticed by running the Schema.org snippet in the Structured Data Testing Tool is that the code doesn't verify. You're currently using an array for the sameAs property. But you can't use a @type SocialMediaPosting in there. Basically what it's expecting is an array of strings with the values of your sameAs properties. If you would change that it would likely verify.

Martijn.

Hmmm. It might depend on the business that you're in. So I would mention that as well as it might change my opinion. But for now I would stick with implementing Structured Data Markup as in most cases it will help search engines better understand the content.

Hey!

Yeah you forgot to close some objects + arrays. This is at least validating but please make sure your objects are correct:

Look outside of the data of Moz from time to time, Google Search Console and Bing Webmaster Tools might sometimes be able to already get you so many great insights for smaller sites that Moz doesn't have (because they're not crawling the whole web, vs. search engines doing that).

What's wrong with that line? Seems perfect to me